Interesting Textual Variants on Shabbat 21b

I have noticed two very interesting textual variants, both explanations for the preceding passage, that would have obviated the need for Rashi's comment on that line of the Talmud.

The Talmud states:

ת'ר מצות חנוכה נר איש וביתו 

Our rabbis taught (in a Baraita): The mitzvah of Chanukah is a candle for a man and his household.

Yet the manuscript Oxford Opp. Add. fol. 23 has this addition:

איש וביתו ס'ד אלא אימ' נר איש בביתו

 Do you really mean "a man and his household"? Rather, I'll say, "a man in his house."

This spurs many questions. What is wrong with "a man and his household"? How is it resolved by making it "a man in his house"? And what does it mean as the mitzvah?

The term "man and his household" comes up elsewhere in the Talmud. In Rosh Hashanah 30a the Talmud states:

 תקיעת ראש השנה ויובל דוחה את השבת בגבולין, איש וביתו. מאי איש וביתו? אילימא איש ואשתו - איתתא מי מיחייבא? והא מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא היא, וכל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא - נשים פטורות אלא לאו: איש בביתו

The blowing of the shofar on New Year and Jubilee overrides Sabbath in the country [for] a man and his house. What is meant by 'a man and his house'? Shall I say it means a man and his wife? Has then a woman to perform this duty, seeing that it is a duty for which there is a specific time, and women are not liable to perform any duties for which there is a specific time? What it therefore must mean is, "a man in his house."

Thus, we see that the Talmud feels the need to reinterpret "a man and his household" because women would be implied, and they are not obligated in the mitzvah of Shofar. Yet that problem does not exist in regard to Chanukah, since women are indeed obligated in candle lighting, which we know from Shabbat 23a. So what was the issue, to this variant?

It could be that the writer of this variant attempted to stay consistent with the "man and his household" follow-up question we find in Rosh Hashanah. But that seems too "smart" to ascribe to a copyist who seems to be changing the text. The problem to me, seems to be that, like we see in Rosh Hashanah, "man and his household" refers to multiple people.

The phrase "נר איש וביתו" can be difficult to translate exactly. In its most literal sense, it means "A candle, man and his household." Filling in the blanks, how everyone translates it is "[One] candle [for] a man and his household." Indeed, Rashi tells us twice(!) in the same comment that this is so, to remove all ambiguity:

נר אחד בכל לילה ואיש וכל בני ביתו סגי להו בנר אחד:

 One candle for each night, a man and all the people of his household, it is enough for them with one candle.

So, Rashi obviously felt the ambiguity of the phrase. And I think this variant did as well. That is, do you really think it means that two candles have to be lit, one for a man and one for his household? No! It means a man in his house, meaning one candle for the owner of the house, and no more.

My only twinge of doubt is that in Rosh Hashanah, the answer of "man in his house" is meant to signify that he can perform the mitzvah at home, not in Bet Din itself. Does that transfer over to Chanukah candles? How? A mystery.

The second textual variant is not as interesting, but still interesting to me. This is the statement of the Talmud:

אמרוה רבנן קמיה דאביי משמ' דר' ירמיה ולא קיבלה כי אתא רבין אמרה קמיה דאביי משמ' דר' יוחנן וקיבלה אמ' אי זכאי גמרתה מעיקרא והא גמרה נפקא מינה לגירסא דינקותא 

 The rabbis recounted it before Abaye in the name of Rabbi Yirmiya, and he refused to accept it. When Rabin came before Abaye [and said it] in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, he accepted it. He said, "I wish I had merited to learn that originally." But he [eventually] learned it! The difference is the learning one has as a child.

Before I move forward, I'd like to present here my theory of why Abaye refused to accept the law when it was told in the name of Rabbi Yirmiya, but was willing to accept it in the name of Rabbi Yochanan. Skip the highlighted text to see the variant instead.

I wrote this in the context of commenting on Rabbi Zeira trying to forget the learning of Babylonia. 

It's clear that Rabbi Zeira had some disdain for those who lived in Babylonia. He called the Baylonians stupid for their diet ("bread with bread", Beitza 16a, Nedarim 49b), and he desperately wanted to make aliyah, even having to sneak around Rav Yehuda to do so in Shabbat 41a.

The Rabbis of Palestine also expressed disdain for the rabbis of Babylonia.

See Rav Yochanan's statement to a Babylonian, R' Chiyya bar Abba, in Bava Basra 107 and Bechorot 18a, "You were eating berries in Babylonia while I was learning." And see his statement to R' Chiyya again in Shabbat 105b, "You Babylonian," - who doesn't understand...

Rav Yirmiya says that Babylonian rabbis argue by insulting each other - Sanhedrin 24a. He says that Babylonians are fools because they dwell in a land of darkness, they engage in dark discussion - Pesachim 34b, and Zevachim 60b and Menahot 52a (where R' Yochanan is also quoted as part of the discussion, though not on this precisely)

Rav Yochanan is quoted that Palestinains hate Babylonians - Menachot 100a and Yoma 66b.

And see Rabbi Yochanan's student's derasha in Shabbat 145b about how terrible Babylonians are. Rabbah bar bar Chana, or someone else (as the discussion continues to be clarified), said to Resh Lakish that he hated him, which is explained to mean that the people living in Babylonia should have made aliyah but didn't come back in enough numbers. However, Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with his reasoning. - Yoma 9b

So it makes sense to me that Rabbi Zeira, wanting to fit into the Palestinian yeshivas, had to convince them he was no longer a Babylonian by doing this.

And a bit later on, Rava's complaints about their treatment at the hands of the Palestinian:

He clearly did not take very well to the insults against him and Babylonia in general. He complains in Menachot 52a that they in Palestine never hear the good derashot from Babylonia, only the weak ones. In Yoma 57a he complains again about the insults. And yes, in Ketubot 75a, he says that really the reason why Palestinian scholars insult Babylonians is because they became so smart in Babylonia first, and then made aliya. In my opinion, the real answer is that they had to fit in, and Rava misread the situation. Babylonians, Rava and Shmuel alike, felt Babylonia was better, and fought back against their supposed inferiority proposed by the Palestinian academies. 

Other Babylonian rabbis were quite afraid of the prospect of proving their stuff before the Palestinian rabbis. See Rabbi Abba, who

prayed to God in Beitza 38a that the Palestinian rabbis should accept his teachings in Palestine when he made aliyah. It was a frightening prospect, and he resorted to asking God for help. Their response was laughter. They mocked him. He was unsuccessful.

What we should notice above is that Rabbi Yirmiya and Rabbi Yochanan were some of the fiercest opponents of the Babylonian rabbinate. Yet, Rabbi Yochanan accords them respect and disagrees with the derashot of his students in regard to them which insult them. In my opinion, Abaye refused to accept the teaching when it came to Rabbi Yirmiya, who was the meanest of the bunch, but accepted it when it came to Rabbi Yochanan. He lamented that he wished he could have heard it from Rabbi Yochanan originally so he could have accepted the teaching earlier.

Ok. With that out of the way, let's talk about the variant. Why is there anything special about the learning of a child? We have the phrase "you can't teach an old dog new tricks", and Rashi helps us out by telling us, מתקיים יותר משל זקנה, it stays better than that of an old person. But this variant, from the manuscript University of Toronto, MS Friedberg 9-002, has the extra line: 

דאמ' מר גירסא דינקותא דומה לדיו נאה על גבי נייר לבן גירסא דסיבותא דמיא לדיו שאינו נאה על גבי נייר מחוק 

For the Master had said, "The learning of youth is compared to nice ink on blank paper. The learning of the elderly is compared to ink that is not so nice with repurposed [lit. erased] paper."

 Where is this line from? It is similar to that of the Mishnah Avot 4:20:

אלישע בן אבויה אומר, הלומד ילד למה הוא דומה, לדיו כתובה על ניר חדש.והלומד זקן למה הוא דומה, לדיו כתובה על ניר מחוק 

Elisha ben Abuya says: One who learns as a child is compared to what? To ink written on new parchment. And one who learns as an elder is compared to what? To ink written on scraped parchment. 

This, of course, renders Rashi's commentary unnecessary. The same ambiguity Rashi meant to explain is explained by this line. Why is this variant here, though? A mystery.